Hi, As my review said - please wait for instructions from the document shepherd. The IESG discussion is what counts. My opinion is only my opinion.
Regards Brian On 2011-06-05 19:21, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote: > So, I am a bit confused, just to summarize my understanding so far :- > > - if the document status is standards track, then there is no issue. > - if the document status is informational, then remove the RFC 2119 usage. > Then I am afraid the message of the draft becomes at the best dubious. > - retain it as informational, but use "updates 1122". Can this be done? I am > not sure.. > > How do we move forward on this one? > > -Anantha > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 9:10 PM >> To: Wesley Eddy >> Cc: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth); draft-ietf-tcpm- >> [email protected]; General Area Review Team; David Harrington >> Subject: Re: Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt >> >> Hi Wes, >> >>> In TCPM, it was determined that RFC 1122 is not wrong or flawed, just >>> potentially unclear. >> That's a judgment call that the WG's entitled to make, of course. >> >> (Side comment: it would be useful for reviewers outside the WG >> if writeups noted why a document was in a particular category >> when there might be some question about it.) >> >>> There are many non-standards-track RFCs that include 2119 language, >> True, where the document is self-contained (e.g. an Experimental >> specification). But it goes with my previous point - either it's >> normative, in which case it should be standards track, or it isn't, >> in which case using RFC 2119 seems inconsistent. >> >> This is definitely IMHO but I see from Dave Harrington's DISCUSS that >> he has the same questions. >> >> Regards >> Brian Carpenter >> >> >> >> >> On 2011-06-05 15:08, Wesley Eddy wrote: >>> Just commenting on the non-editorial portion: >>> >>> On 6/4/2011 5:51 PM, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote: >>>> ... >>>> >>>> Why is this Informational? If it matters, it should be a Standards >> Track >>>> document updating RFC 1122. >>>> >>>> ANA> I agree, it should have been a standards track document since >> it >>>> clarifies the RFC 1122 wording. I believe the TCPM chairs and WG >> group >>>> had >>>> ANA> approved us to come up with a informational RFC that clarifies >>>> the intention of RFC 1122 regarding persist state. We have no >> problems >>>> making ANA> this a standards track, I'll leave it to the chairs to >>>> comment on this. >>> In TCPM, it was determined that RFC 1122 is not wrong or flawed, just >>> potentially unclear. >>> >>> The current draft is a clarification rather than actually augmenting, >>> correcting, extending, or updating any of the specs and guidance in >>> 1122. >>> >>> As I recall, Informational was purposefully chosen by TCPM; this is >>> more implementation guidance than anything warranting standards >> track. >>> As for adding Updates 1122, this may be a good idea; I don't recall >> if >>> it was specifically discussed by the WG. I noticed at least one >> other >>> RFC which includes clarifications is Informational and doesn't Update >>> its parent documents (RFC 4718 is the example) >>> >>> >>>> If it's not a Standards Track document, why is it using RFC 2119 >>>> language? >>>> >>>> ANA> I think we need to remove the RFC 2119 language if the target >> is >>>> informational. >>> There are many non-standards-track RFCs that include 2119 language, >> so >>> it's unclear what the hangup is here. That said, I think either way, >>> the meaning of this document will be clear, so don't have strong >>> personal feelings one way or the other. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
